It is true that any voting on a writeup honors it in some way. It tells the author that someone has read it, but in many cases someone has just hit upon the node. There is far more random upvoting than random downvoting here. Why? Someone hits on a node, looks at it briefly and says:

"I don't have time to read thisand the subject doesn't much interest me,but I have a lot of votes to burn."And so they upvote based on perceived merit.(Hmmm. It is long. Seems to have a lot of details. Yeah. Upvote the sucker.)

The random downvoter may be motivated by similar perceptions, but many of these seemingly random downvoters are simply opposed to certain types of writeups... lyrics, humor, prose, goofy titles, daylogs, short writeups, long writeups, whatever... automatically bringing them to hit the downvote based on their dislike for the type of writeup they see. They might just downvote any writeup with the word "cabbage" or "miracle" in it.

Downvoting with Purpose

When is a good time to hit that downvote? Picture yourself assisting the editors with your voting. After all, in a database supposedly rooted in community, all opinions should be relevant as to whether a submitted piece stays, goes or is elevated to a highly regarded status. If an editor comes across a submitted piece they feel is a horrible piece of writing, either for its grammar, factual inaccuracies, pointlessness, or any other of the dozens of things that drag a writeup down, their first instinct may be to kill it and make it go away. Now, imagine that the editor looks at the piece's reputation. Holy holstein, Batman, it has a +8 reputation! Editor may think again. "Hmmm, people seem to like it. Maybe it isn't that bad after all." Knowing that editorial judgment is subjective, I will rarely delete something with a strongly positive reputation... but what if the voting is skewed? What if these eight positive votes were just random people burning votes who felt ashamed of downvoting?

Scenarios: You realize the author is presenting incorrect information and misleading the reader. The writeup is woefully incomplete and poorly written to the point where you cannot even read it without getting a headache. It is a creative piece that makes no sense, goes nowhere and rambles on and on, leaving you unable to follow it or even finish reading it. Your downvote is saying that the quality of these pieces is beneath what you expect at E2. The author of the piece is not easily convinced that he or she needs to go back to the drawing board and improve their writing if it is sitting with eight upvotes.

Downvotes and Self-Improvement Videos

The other important element of this is self-improvement. Say there are some very talented writers on the site, but they submit their bottom of the barrel material just to see how it does. If it is fairly well received and maintains a positive reputation, they may very well continue to submit sub-standard writing. They become convinced that their lesser material is "good enough" for E2 and thus never submit better material. Why get better when your half-assed efforts are good enough? This is also true of established users who stumble. They have a following for their work, and often get upvotes based on their reputation. However, if they submit something awful, downvotes should tell them "this is just not up to your usual high standards." Because many people here are afraid to send critical /msgs about writeups to established users because they fear some kind of evil retribution, the downvote is a silent way of relaying that message. However, it doesn't always work out that way. Downvotes are seen as random retribution of some kind, or simply curmudgeons sitting in a dark room drinking vinegar and spewing forth hatred. Unfortunately, this is often true.

The Mystery of the Downvote

The application of the downvote should be one you think about. Would you have them do unto your writeup what you are doing unto theirs? Does one expect to know via their posts here what work is excellent in the eyes of the E2 audience, what is good, what is fair and what is just poor... or beneath your usual efforts? Or do you simply want love heaped upon you no matter what kind of writeup you kick forth? Herein lies the answer. Some E2 users want unconditional writeup love. Some want constructive criticism. Others aren't really sure as long as they get a slice of apple pie at the end of the day.

Is there an answer to the question of what downvotes mean? You have to adjust your view and come up with your own interpretation. Examine your last page of writeups in your user search. Is there a pattern? Compare similar types of writeups... which soar in reputation and which lag? Is this a sign that some are better than others? Not always, but it can be a good indicator. Other factors come into play, such as when you posted, who was around at the time, and what mood they were in. There is no answer. People will never downvote or upvote with any sort of accuracy or predictability. At least in this lifetime, unless we build some kind of cruel conditioning camp to train users, but the government has rejected those plans.

A less scientificformula tells us this. A factual writeup with no downvotes is a superb piece. A prose writeup with two to three times as many upvotes as downvotes is superior. This does not take into account the magical C! but that is part of the feedback as well, and tells you someone was strongly behind what you presented.

Vote as a Reader not as a Writer

Without sin? Throw the first stone. I know people here who never downvote because their mindset is "My writeups aren't all that good so I feel wrong about downvoting anything." You need to vote as a reader, not as a comparison to your own efforts. Whatever your primary goals here on E2 are, the voting line should not be "Better or equal to my work, upvote... not as good as my work, downvote."

There is no Substitute for Feedback

People get nervous about giving feedback to the author of a writeup via /msg. Those of us who do know there are very sensitive users out there who take any constructive criticism or suggestion as an affront. Those who give frequent commentary, suggestions and criticism sometimes get a reputation as bad guys.

Why is he/she always on my back?Why is it always me that has something wrong with my writeups?

Step back for a moment. If your writeups sucked, then no one would bother trying to help you make them better or by suggesting small changes that you may have overlooked or not thought about. Whenever you get feedback on a writeup, that should be worth more than a dozen upvotes. It means someone has taken notice and seen enough in your work that they feel it is worth their time and effort to help you improve it.

On the other side of the coin, don't be afraid to make suggestions or comments to users higher up on the other user list than you as well as editors and gods. If they have left something out, suggest inclusion... you may have knowledge on a subject that they weren't aware of. If a paragraph or sentence is confusing to you, let them know. As writers we should strive to improve. As researchers we should thirst for additional knowledge.

In General:Don't kick 'em in the shins.A kind word travels thousands of miles.Embrace each other with your earsas well as your words.But when they fuck upHit 'em hard! Yeah!Downvote 'em!Sure.But know your reasons first.

This month, my topic is politeness. Now, the standard of politeness (as has been observed by many scholarly blokes, most notably Norbert Elias) is a function of the society it operates in. One man's courtesy is another man's rudeness. However, in terms of our present environment, courtesy follows a commonly-defined standard. Here are some of the instantiations of that standard, as I see them:

An admin (editor or god) who nukes a writeup must be polite enough to message that user with an explanation (usually utilising the Klaproth function). Ideally, the message must be signed, but in the case of very busy admins or very obstreperous or vindictive noders, the signature may be omitted.

El Helio by SkipWiley (August 23, 2002) - "We don't really appreciate made-up stuff like this, especially when you stuff it into a lot of nodes. If you're going to write fiction, write it up in a single node, and do it with style."

The Historicity of Christ by kyberuserid (August 26, 2002) - User warned repeatedly about factual errors in text. Failed to respond. Was nuked with the message: "Since you seem to have totally ignored my editorial remarks to this node, and haven't even bothered to respond, I believe a nuke is in order."

How to run a roleplaying game (August 4, 2002) - As an experienced gamemaster (20+ years of gaming experience), this appealed to me. A bunch of solid factuals on the planning and execution of a good RPG campaign. What's not to like?

Rule of 72 (August 12, 2002) - Very handy info, and good background information, both mathematical, historical, and anecdotal.

Plagiarism (August 19, 2002) - Not only explains the meaning, but the philological and moral implications. Sterling nodestuff.

Firmlinked

( ... )

Softlocked

Minority Report (August 14, 2002) - "By now, most critical aspects of this film have been covered in the writeups here present - and numerous spoilers revealed. If you think you have something new to say, contact a god or editor."

Last week some members of the e2religion usergroup began asking about the node Beyond Belief: A Buddhist Critique of Christianity (henceforth referred to as BB). Some felt that as it is a cut and paste job from another Web site, it should be removed. (Even the acknowledgment at the beginning that there is no information on the author or whether the work is in the public domain was copied verbatim.) Others had no problem with it staying, but recalled that all writeups written as a rebuttal to its claims had been removed and wanted to know why.

I sought answers among the gods and was able to reconstruct the node's history -- which I'm making public as it involves an application of policy regarding "imported" works here on E2 that may not be obvious.

whizkid imported the short book BB into E2, a work that may or may not be in the public domain but which has been reproduced on the Web in several places. Each chapter was given its own node.

Writeups were posted under some of the individual chapter headings, addressing the critiques contained in those chapters.

whizkid filed a request for the deletion of those writeups. He contended that by placing the book on E2 he was only making use of the database's archival function. Line by line rebuttals to the piece are as out of place as a line by line challenge to racist elements in Huckleberry Finn would be if that work were ever imported into E2. Furthermore, he said the rebuttal writers were treating him as if he were the author.

The editor who responded to the request was convinced, and was also mindful of a policy wherein for the sake of organization, commentary on and reviews of imported works should be added under the parent node of the work rather than under its individual chapters. For instance, a writeup about the imported Huckleberry Finn would go under Huckleberry Finn and not Huckleberry Finn: Chapter 11.

I reported to the e2religion group that we had no evidence that BB is not in the public domain, and that a restriction is being enforced that any responses to it must be made in the node Beyond Belief: a Buddhist Critique of Christianity. This generated the percepton that whizkid, whose radical opposition to Christianity isn't exactly a secret here, finessed the editors into allowing him to post a cut-and-paste broadside to which no effective counter-arguments could be made.

I could see both sides of the argument and was unsure how to resolve it, so I turned to dem bones for guidance. In doing so I forgot that bones has a Zen Master-like habit of responding to requests like these with a solution that settles the issue but ADDS to my problems. He offered me a choice: remove the BB node series as befits our treatment of cut-and-paste content, or allow one well-written and non-flaming review/response under the parent node.

In making this decision (which I pondered for several days, obsessive type that I am), I consulted with a Buddhist noder who said that since the disputed piece is not any kind of authoritative Buddhist work, he felt that its removal was not an issue. So here is how it's going to be:

As bones suggested, one book-review type writeup may be posted under the title node.

That review, if and when it appears, will be written by me. While the fact that I am arrogant and power-crazed obviously has an impact on this decision, it seems to me that I am the only one involved who is interested in countering the node's arguments but is not pissed off by them. Emotions have been stirred to a point where the temptation to flame might be irresistible. And because I love y'all, I wouldn't much enjoy deleting your writeups.

If you want to counter the arguments made in BB's individual chapters, why not create helpful nodes on those topics? It's been claimed for example that BB misrepresents Christian beliefs about the relationship between Jesus and JewishMessianicprophecy. Wellll....how about hitting the books, educating yourself about the different schools of thought regarding that relationship, writing a node called Jesus and Jewish Messianic prophecy, and softlinking it to BB Chapter 5? Coming up against objections like these gives you an opportunity to explore these issues more deeply than you might otherwise.